tv Washington Journal Representative Earl Blumenauer Discusses His Bill on... CSPAN April 28, 2017 8:33am-9:00am EDT
source of evidence or context to which most judges and lawyers turn to to the extent that it is useful in a case. >> at 8:00 on the presidency, historians on the most influential first ladies could >> dolley madison, who really shaped in formal politics in washington. thateally understood social gatherings, you could get men to agree with the president two warring, or get factions together over ice cream. >> for our complete american tv history schedule, go to c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: back at our table this morning, congressman earl blumenauer from georgia. thank you for being here. let's talk about this contain
resolution on the government for one more week. your deadline is midnight tonight. [laughter] host: how are you going to vote? guest: i am happy to vote to give the negotiators another week. no one was to shut them a government. time is been on our side. the president has retreated on some of the crazier things on assisting on the -- and so forth. in the course of the week, we should come out of it. but democrats have been firm steny by our corporate supposed and integrity of the process and it has worked well so far. host: the leader in the senate for democrats, chuck schumer, last night said, i am not agreeing to unanimous consent about thisant to see larger bill being negotiated -- is this the stance of the democrats? guest: senator schumer is correct.
sure thereed to make are not poison pills in there. but there is no problem allowing a week to make sure that this bill is scrubbed. the appropriators have been working hard, as you know, for months, particularly this last month, and left in their own devices, they could come up with something that we could support. it is not going to be optimal, but it will not be something that shuts the government down and we can avoid the worst things we are concerned about. host: before you leave, you will not be voting on the latest iteration to change the affordable care act. a vote will be happening in could be happening. how will you vote on that and why? , andr: what they have done the reason we are not going on right now is the rpc some of the more extreme -- we're not going to vote on it right now as they are voting on the more extreme
versions. it assaults a program that is the largest provider of health care in america -- medicaid. tois a one-way trip down shift responsibilities to the stated make it harder for people who are deserving of this care to get it. they only have one shot in their entire life. and you become a medicaid goes up and down in terms of eligibility because the economy changes. it is heartless and it is stupid because those people are still going to get care, but it will be in an emergency room, and it will be too late. they are adding provisions to deny the presidential -- to deny the essential protections. and people with pre-existing conditions are not going to be -- turning his back to the states only opens a stored have denial.
some of the status of irrational that they had denied care. host: republicans argue that we give states the options that they do not provide essential benefits. first, they cannot do that unless they prove there is a high risk pool. the provision of this bill becomes automatic if the federal government does not intervene. the high risk pulls having tried repeatedly and have not worked. what will make this different? fundamentally, we have a bill that is working for many of americans. and this continues to have that same flaw -- deny care, and the one-way ratcheting down a medicaid protections. host: where have high risk pools and try to not worked? guest: neighboring state of washington. this was a precursor to the affordable care act because
people have been concerned about this for years. but there has been no state that risk pool thatgh met the need. but it is a necessary. we have protections in the bill now. if they want to work with us to be able to reduce, for example, i cost deductibles -- high cost deductibles, we are all in favor of that. we stood ready for six years. i have been on that health committee. they had been -- they have chosen not to do it. what they have been doing putting uncertainty into the insurance markets actually is driving up premiums. you have seen independent analysis that if their bill was put into affect companies would not go down. deductibles would not go down. what would happen is that people would be forced to go off because it will be priced out of the market because it is too
expensive for older americans. and there would be insurance that is not really insurance. that is cheaper, but that is not gave people what they need -- but that does not give people what they need. i doubt there have been many republicans against the first version. host: another issue is the president's remarks to reuters last night syndicate -- last night same and to be a major copper with north korea. guest: wow. who knew? [laughter] guest: it is an ongoing learning experience with this president that he is finding out that these things are complicated. yes conversations with the chinese and he understands that there are issues with north korea and currency manipulation. i think there is nothing new here, except donald trump has n element of uncertainty in terms of united
states diplomacy, and the confidence that allies can have that we are steadfast in that they can count on us. merkel, hinting at a trade war with some of our closest allies and important trading partners. questioning nato. nato is ok now. this inconsistency from the president puts doubt in the minds of our allies, which ought to be a concern. north korea has always been unpredictable, and a troubling element as long as i have been in congress. this isn't anything new, but the erratic comments and behavior of the president makes it worse. that what do you attribute inconsistency to with this president? guest: that is who he is. he turns on a dime. there were all the things he was going to do the first day in office in terms of caring off
nafta, branding china the currency manipulator, repealing obamacare. and what we have seen is a series of executive orders that away aay -- that chip proposal for a budget that most of my republican friends says is dead on arrival. in the 250 word piece of paper "tax proposal." and he was campaigning to get rid of the deficit. every analyst said the outline and he proposed would explode the deficit. this is who the guy is. host: is at bayou introduced legislature -- is that why you introduced legislature to remove the president? these erratic behaviors, he did not know that it was raining on him while he was giving his speech and repeating falsehoods that are not true raises questions.
but i analyze the 25th amendment and realized it has a great flaw. if you have a president who is delusional and out of control and paranoid, the 25th amendment, as written, may not operate because it requires cooperation of the president's cabinet and the vice president. and somebody who is mentally out of control and delusional with simply fire the cabinet, and it cannot be triggered. directed thinking that that is not really a very good position to begin because we have had presidents in the past, ronald reagan's staff considered employing this because of the early onset of alzheimer's. over time, it is likely that this might occur. having a committee, not of cabinet members that a president
could fire, but instead, all former presidents and vice publicnts would have the confidence, and would understand the pressure of the presidency, and they would have the public confidence. it is a better procedure if we ever get to the point where it needs to be triggered. host: let's see what our viewers have to say. john in oregon, go ahead. congressmano, blumenauer and greta. i have two points. care. my wifeth and my experience high risk pools. our payment was about a house payment. and then, with immigration, 15 right now? ice notce -- that is being able to operate within a
certain mild radiance of churches, etc. guest: i appreciate you reiterating that high risk pools have not worked because they are very expensive. and states are not particularly well-equipped to be able to underwrite that cost by themselves come particular when they go through challenging economic times. we are not having any luck in moving legislation to this point that would help take the edge off anything that deals with immigration. i am hopeful that there is a way that people will extend some thoughtful consideration to what we are doing that is destabilizing communities. i have heard in oregon from people and agricultural committee -- community that are concerned about these current policies are disrupting their ability to do business.
we have heard from people in volved in medical care that people are not showing up for plymouth because they feel like there will be a sweep and that they will be taken away. this is of a that is deeply troubling. -- this is something that is deeply troubling. reform --mprehensive comprehensive immigration reform. if it -- we could take these issues up the table and treat people humanely and avoid this unnecessary disruption. in some cases, it is cruel and humane. in --we will go to bed will go to ed in oregon. oregoniansof these
up early. host: yes. caller: this is in regards to your no-trump bill. you have place yourself in a precarious position and quite outspoken to talk about trump's corruption, and traveling to and from his own house on weekends. you have been a lot more quiet on what is happening right now in oregon. your democrat party in oregon is destroying the state through corruption and unwillingness to enforce laws. standby whileon property.andalism on the parade was canceled a day ago because of the threats of violence and the police's unwillingness to protect that parade. yethad a portland judge --
a portland judge is ready to sentence a videographer for up to 50 years for defending r defending himself. host: congressman? been somere have troubling situations, i confess in my community and others, where there isn't an artistic troubledatter deeply -- better deeply troubling. i don't think anybody is standing by allowing this to occur. they are trying to deal with this with minimum disruption. there are people in the community questioning some of the tactic. taking the flow is place. the notion that this is corrupt and that people are not safe to be a will to move around, i invite you to come to portland,
see how 100 people a day of moving there to take part in a vibrant, local economy. overall crime rates are down. we have problems like everyone else, but the picture of my friend in redmond is not what i see when i get off a plane. my concern about the no-trump pact is for the first time in history, we have a president whose business is his brand. he has not put this in a blind trust or divested himself. he could take unlimited profits from things he owns. the fact that it is being run by his kids is not much of a wall of separation, for heaven's sake. and they continue to have a situation that they can be enriched with things that happened with the government. look at what happened on a website for trump properties.
they were embarrassed when it was made public and taken down. so my legislation does is make it impossible for someone in the white house to profit from the federal government paying through their facilities. it does nothing to prevent him, even know he is on schedule to spend more money in his first year as president and president obama spent for his entire two terms, which, criticized. -- which trump criticized. he could solve this by divesting himself of his business interests. host: david at arizona. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. blumenauer. i'm david hall. i do not know if you remember me. with your first
successful run a congress back in the 1980's. my question for you is why are not -- why aren't we creating laws so that whomever runs for president must follow basic rules, like policing their taxes, demanding a blind trust for their business interests, separate business and travel versus families for the president and therefore family ,- president and their family so we're not seen the type of expenditures that this president is running up on the tab of the american people? we have to create laws that stop these kinds of abuses. that is what your job is, sir. and i am hopeful that people will start to create these laws because we are letting the worse run the place right now and we have to create laws that the worse the state the top. it hasfirst of all,
never been required before to an laws, like two enact putting your assets in a blind office.ile in every other president in modern times has done that. we probably shouldn't have to have legislation that requires disclosure of tax returns because every president since richard nixon, except i think gerald ford, fully release their tax returns, including candidates. mitt romney had a massive tax return that he made public. it is vexing because the tax proposals that are being advanced by the president appear based on the
one return that we did get from i think 2005, that many of these provisions would benefit him dramatically. it was the alternative minimal tax it he proposes to eliminate, which is the only reason he paid most of his taxes in 2005. we should not have to have lots to do it, but i guess, we are setting a precedent where we cannot rely on the good judgment and common sense of candidates to follow through on their campaign pledges. donald trump was going to releases taxes. he said he was going to do it. but maybe we're going to have to have a law. it is not going to be approved by this republican congress unless there is a greater scandal that breaks out. and then people will fall all over themselves to do something to appear on the right side of history. but it is something that all the other presidents and presidential candidates have done. it is set that we have to consider lost to make people do what be the right thing.
host: we will go to new york with paul. an independent. caller: yes, good morning to the congressman. it is a pleasure to dedicated to speak with you. unfortunately, what i hear from you is a line from the democratic party, which you and colleagues, and her haven't learned that the american people do not buy your line, here it is 100 days in and you are looking for impeachment? politics is a dying breed, sir. try to get number with the american people. thank you. guest: i appreciate your comment . first of all, i am not proposing that the president should be impeached. let's wait and see how these investigations go and what is going on with russia and other
things. i'm not suggesting impeachment. i do not think it is inappropriate to hold the president accountable and republican congress for following through on promises that were made, or things in the best interest of the american public. i have a long track record working on a bipartisan basis on a wide variety of issues. i am proud of that. i continue to do so. i have a number of provisions i am working with with republican colleagues right now. but there is nothing partisan about holding people accountable for their actions in pointing out the destructive nature of activities going on with a desire to wreck a health care bill that is actually working, replacing it with something much worse for the vast majority of the american public. that is not partisan. it is interesting that there are a number of republicans,
including several from your state of new york, who are not on board with his reckless act. is that partisan? . i think not. trying to be clear and concise on what the impacts are, leveling with the american public, and fighting to prevent damage. host: we more ministry for the house gavels in for their morning session, trying to finish up some business before they go home, one of them being a contain resolution to keep the government funded. we will try to get a couple of phone calls in. james in texas. a republican. caller: yes, the congressman says something about donald trump was learning on the job. i'd --obama voted on the job he did not do a good job at it. and to the affordable care act, back in 1962, we did not have the federal government in the insurance business. our employers and ourselves
funded our insurance. i had a broken leg and i was out of work for 20 months. and i had insurance. when i went back to work, i got insurance. and i have not been denied insurance. act hadaffordable care a false promise. james, a broken leg is not a pre-existing condition that would have most people denied insurance. but there are lots of other conditions that did in terms of cancer, and even pregnancy could be a pre-existing condition. i am glad that you were in good shape with a broken leg and you had insurance through your employer were able to go back. but in 1962, if you look at the facts in texas and other states, we were in a precarious position
prior to medicare, which some people thought was socialized medicine it would destroy medical care and the united states. seniors have the poorest health conditions. they were not able to provide the resources on a fee per service basis after medicaid -- medicare was approved. the condition for seniors and the united states improved dramatically. prior to the affordable care act, we had millions of americans that did not have health care. we had skyrocketing premiums. the problems people are talking about now were worse. and medical inflation was higher. after the affordable care act past, we've had the lowest rate of medical inflation and 50 years. we got millions of more people that provided
coverage and kept them out of emergency rooms. i think the record is very positive. is it perfect? no. other things we can do to improve it? we stand the republican friends to do so. but denying health care to millions of american citizens for having real problems in terms of things like pre-existing conditions, other than a broken leg, does not seem to be a prescription to move forward in a positive way. host: the house is about to come in here. what is on cap be next week -- what is on tap next week? guest: considering to keep the government open again. and there are rumors that there will be a revised provision to abolish the affordable care act that is looming, if they can twist enough arms to vote for this bill, which is actually worse. we are going to buy day as they go back and forth between administration, the republican
leadership. i am hopeful that we will shift things like the puny affordable care act and go back to things where there are areas of bipartisan agreement. we have had all sorts of people on capitol hill yesterday dealing with reform of the farm bill. that is an opportunity to get better service and save money for the american public. infrastructure -- there is lots of things we can do to get if it -- get to it. host: congressmen earl blumenauer. thank you for your time and thank you for the conversation as always. guest: it is always interesting, greta. host: the house is gaveling in any minute for an update him legislative session because they have work to do before they leave washington. we will bring you to the floor right now right on c-span.